Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Particle physics



Sorry for the late response. I meant only the electrostatic contribution, and once we admit that electric field stores energy, this energy is infinite for any point charge, be it an electron or charged W. This problem had been general concern for many and discussed in many sources (see, e.g., Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Ch. 27). Neutrino being neutral, must be free from it. The same for a proton despite its charge, because it has a finite size manifest, e.g., from the experiments with high-energy collisions. But the question pops up again as we go to quarks, and I do not have clear answer.
  Moses Fayngold,
NJIT 


________________________________
From: Jack Urestsky <jlu@anl.gov>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>; Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Particle physics


"tiny" is irrelevant.  You are, in effeect, asking what eleectron
slf-enery diagrams look like.  How about a W- and neutrino?
                        Regards,
                              JACK

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Moses Fayngold wrote:

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:05:48 -0500
From: Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org, Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Particle physics





________________________________

On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

There is no experimental evidence, as far as I know, that an electon is made of many negatively charged components (for example 10 particles of tiny charge, >q=e/10, and tiny mass, each). Therefore the idea of "electrostatic self-energy of an electron" belongs to logic (mathematics), not to physics. Each new axiom >creates new problems to solve. 
That above-mentioned idea would belong to physics if tiny negative sub-particles were shown to exist in nature. In physics we do not say that electrons are >made from negative subparticles. They are usually introduced as point-like particles. 


  The electrostatic energy of any charge system can be expressed either in terms of the charge density distribution, or (through div E = rho/epsilon), in terms of the corresponding electric field distribution. In the latter case, when we go to the limit of exact localization (point charge) rho (r) ---> delta (r), it becomes immaterial whether the net charge is a compound of smaller parts, or an indivisible unit. In any case, its energy, at least in classical physics, must go to infinity in the point charge limit. As far as Math leading to expression of energy in terms of electric field alone remains valid in this limit, the infinite electrostatic self-energy of any point charge remains a physical problem. Its known "solution" by introducing an "effective electron radius" r_el = e^2/mc^2 is purely formal, and I am unaware of any other  experimental evidence of a finite size of an electron except of its finite rest energy, which pulls us into the
vicious
circle. So, to my knowledge, the problem remains an unresolved issue.         

Moses Fayngold,
NJIT

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
        General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
        just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley